' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this criminal appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. The appellant seeks setting aside Of the judgment dated 15-4-2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khushab through which he had acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 7 in a case F.I.R. No,82 of 1999, dated 29-4-1999 registered under section 337/A(i), A(iv)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab on the statement of Munsabdar the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the injured witness had appeared in support of the prosecution story against the respondents, but in. Spite of that the respondents have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court on surmises and conjectures; that the medical evidence fully supported the ocular account; that the recovery had been effected from the respondents, which was proved on the record; that sufficient evidence had been produced on the record to connect respondents with the alleged crime, but they have been acquitted on surmises and conjectures and this Court is fully empowered to call for said accused-respondents and sentenced them according to law as their acquittal was result of miscarriage of justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon The State v. Munawar Hussain 2005 YLR 1872 (Lahore).
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and other material available on the file with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The learned Trial Court observed that one Khalid Javaid (respondent) had also received injuries during the incident of this case, who was also medically examined on the same day and probable duration of the injury was the same. It was established that said injury could be received by Khalid Javed (respondent-accused) in the same incident, but the same inquiry had been suppressed by the appellant. It is also found that according to the prosecution, Khalid Javed, Nayyar Sultan and Muhammad Hussain (respondents-accused) were armed with hatchets at the time of incident, but Dr. Ajmal Nadeem Niazi, Medical Officer (P.W.4) who medically examined the three injured persons, did not observe that injuries on their bodies could be result of sharp-edged weapons. It was also found that the previous enmity exited between both the parties and weapons allegedly recovered from the respondents were not stained with blood and the recovery evidence was not relied upon, as it could not be established that the same weapons had been used during the occurrence. After perusal of the impugned judgment, I am satisfied that the learned Trial Court had given valid reasons for the acquittal of the respondent-accused. The learned counsel has failed to point out that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court was the result of any misreading or non-reading of material evidence on the record. The interference in the appeal against the acquittal is a rare phenomenon, which cannot be made merely on the ground that after perusal of the evidence second view also be adopted and the view in favour of the accused is to be preferred.
It is not a fit case of interference in appeal against the acquittal.
' Resultantly, this criminal appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed in limine.